Moral Obligation: Do Animals Have Rights?

A moral obligation is a theory according to which obligations arise from a social contract which is dictated by the demands or expectations of a society. Morals in separate are defined as the perpetrating concern with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. Obligations are defined as something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things and which arises out of a sense of duty from a custom or law. With this knowledge, add in Michael Pollan’s argument that moral thinking “is an artifact of human culture devised to help us negotiate social relations” (Pollan, 235). With all of these definitions at hand, it is easy to argue that humans are in charge of creating their own ideas of right and wrong as long as a majority of society agrees with them. When asked then, “what are our moral obligations to animals”, I am apt to argue that we have no obligations to them due to the fact animals, as a species, do not take part in this social contract or in defining what is right or wrong. We are bound by laws which we create as agents and animals are only subjected to our rules.

Immanuel Kant argued that as humans, we have positive obligations to animals that grant them no rights other than those we might establish conventionally by law due to the fact that they themselves are not moral agents, those that can act morally, and cannot understand the “concept of rights” (Pollan, 228). “Rights” are defined as that which is morally good, legal, proper or fitting. Morals, as defined earlier are a human concept which means that rights do not have to be granted to those who are not defined as “humans” meaning animals do not fall into this category. As humans, it is our right to use animals for our betterment because we can understand the larger concepts in life like morals, laws, and progress. As Pollan points out, most animal activists are willing to balance the benefits to humans against the cost of an animal life. Without the use of animals in science or medicine, we would be worse off in the long run having not have been able to cure disease that plagues our society, and we would be unable to progress. The rights which Kant talks about that we establish are there to ensure fair treatment of animals, that they don’t suffer unnecessarily, and that they don’t suffer cruelty at the hands of humans in these testing situations. These laws which we create are also overseen by us and punishment is extracted upon those who violate them. This concept of fair treatment cannot be understood by animals and thus they must rely on us to see it through.

Professor Carl